Despite a Will, Jackson Left a Tangled Estate

Howard Weitzman, left, and John G. Branca, lawyers in the dispute over the Jackson estate.Credit
Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Four days after Michael Jackson died, his family gathered at his brother Jermaine’s house in Calabasas, Calif., to hear one of Mr. Jackson’s lawyers read a will he drafted in 2002.

After the lawyer, John G. Branca, read the document — which named Mr. Jackson’s mother, Katherine, the guardian of his three children and a beneficiary of 40 percent of the estate — the group broke out in applause, according to a person in attendance who insisted on anonymity to speak about a private meeting.

The meeting, which included everyone except Joe Jackson, the father, and Randy, one of the six brothers, was a rare show of unity for the famously fractious family. But in death as in life with the pop superstar, nothing is quite what it seems.

Shortly after the meeting, a lawyer representing Mrs. Jackson began a legal effort to wrest control of her son’s estate from Mr. Branca and John McClain, a music executive, both of whom had been named executors.

In a Los Angeles courthouse on Monday, a judge refused Mrs. Jackson’s petition and gave temporary authority to Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain. Another hearing to finalize authority is scheduled for Aug. 3.

But the question of Mr. Jackson’s business legacy, especially how his music and image will be used to generate income for the family, remains tangled and unresolved.

Over the next few months, a broad cast of players — including the family, the executors, the concert promoter AEG Live, advisers like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, and a small army of former advisers and hangers-on — will most likely jockey for position in unwinding the singer’s estate, estimated at more than $500 million. At the same time they will probably try to avoid an ugly public squabble that could damage the value of the Jackson brand.

“My urging is that we need to resolve this in a way that Michael is respected and Mrs. Jackson is respected,” Mr. Sharpton said in an interview by phone. “I would hope that before Aug. 3, everyone would come to terms and go to court and say that we’re all on the same page.”

There is more at stake than the singer’s assets when he was alive. With explosive sales of music and worldwide hunger for all things Jackson, the estate will need to act quickly to establish a business that can police its property.

There are reports of hundreds of unreleased and potentially lucrative songs; unlicensed T-shirts and memorabilia have already flooded the market.

Since Mr. Jackson’s death 10 days ago, Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain have been canvassing former managers and agents to find out whether he had any other wills, investments or cash the two men did not know about.

They are also eager to recover the Neverland Ranch memorabilia from an aborted auction in April. That could put them at odds with Colony Capital, the private equity firm that co-owns Neverland and, according to some people close to the discussions, intends to turn the ranch into a museum along the lines Elvis Presley’s Graceland. Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain would prefer to set up a permanent memorial in more tourist-friendly Las Vegas.

AEG, the promoter, filmed Mr. Jackson’s final rehearsals for a series of comeback concerts scheduled to begin at London’s O2 Arena on July 13. In interviews, Randy Phillips, the chief executive of the company’s live division, has said the footage could earn hundreds of millions of dollars that would help AEG recover some of its losses from the canceled shows (any deal would be shared with the estate, thus benefiting the family as well).

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

At the memorial on Tuesday, money may be the furthest thing from many people’s minds. The Rev. Jackson, who said he had called the Jackson family as soon as he heard about the death, has acted on occasion as an unofficial spokesman. (Those duties have since been farmed out to a prominent publicist, Ken Sunshine.)

“The strength of that family is in its religious convictions and its size,” the Rev. Jackson said. “They have been able to lean on each other in this time of crisis, and figure out how to manage the next phase of their lives after tomorrow. And that’s all I know.”

Behind the scenes, however, the family is far from unified. Joe Jackson, whom Michael Jackson openly accused of physical abuse, and who does not live with his wife, was conspicuously omitted from his son’s will.

It was the father who called on Mr. Sharpton on the day of Mr. Jackson’s death (Jermaine Jackson called shortly after). Mr. Sharpton said he had spoken with all the principals involved, including Mr. Branca. “I think it should work itself out,” Mr. Sharpton said. “I’ve purposely stayed out of taking sides. My role is really to try to protect Michael’s legacy.”

For all their disputes, however, the family has shown a capacity to unite when necessary, said J. Randy Taraborrelli, author of the biography “Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness.”

“Whenever there is a situation that truly requires them to come together, they always do,” he said, “no matter what happened in the past, no matter what beef one might have had.”

What happens next depends on whether Mr. Branca remains an executor after the Aug. 3 hearing. Mr. Branca, a prominent entertainment lawyer, was associated with Mr. Jackson as early as 1980, and he handled most of Mr. Jackson’s big deals, including his 1985 purchase of the Beatles-rich ATV song catalog. In 1987, Mr. Jackson was the best man at Mr. Branca’s first wedding. (David Lee Roth, another Branca client, handled the bachelor party.)

After several years apart, Mr. Branca was rehired just a week before Mr. Jackson’s death.

“He really knows the ins and outs of the value of Michael’s assets, and what can be done with them for the ultimate benefit of the children,” Alvin Malnik, a lawyer and onetime financial adviser to Mr. Jackson.

Mrs. Jackson is in a delicate legal position. The trust contains a “no contest” clause, which typically means that if a beneficiary unsuccessfully challenges the will’s validity, that person no longer can receive any benefit from the trust.

For that reason, L. Londell McMillan, the lawyer for Mrs. Jackson, did not challenge the will directly, but raised only issues of potential professional conflicts.

“We feel that we can all work together,” he said. “But to turn over the keys of the kingdom to people we haven’t determined have proper ability to oversee such a large estate, as well as not to be certain there is not a subsequent will, we felt it better to put responsibility in the hands of Mrs. Katherine Jackson.”

Jonathan D. Glater contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Despite a Will, Jackson Left a Tangled Estate. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe